What does impeachment solve?

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

In that case, ask yourself if the other protections of Convention III have been given to the prisoners at Gitmo:

To my knowledge, yes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To my knowledge, yes.

I suppose the KFC on the prisoner side of the fence has just been left out of all the media photos, mm?

And the orange jumpsuits that they wear were just in fashion when they were captured, and their own clothes haven't been confiscated?

And practices like exposure to hot and cold, sleep deprivation and waterboarding don't constitute torture or coercion?

Also, re-read the excerpt below and ask yourself a question: what is the penalty that a US soldier would serve for killing an Al Qaida member on the battlefield?

Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Penguin,

I suppose the KFC on the prisoner side of the fence has just been left out of all the media photos, mm?

I don't understand the point.

And the orange jumpsuits that they wear were just in fashion when they were captured, and their own clothes haven't been confiscated?

Wow, the orange jumpsuits are grounds for impeaching the president?

And practices like exposure to hot and cold, sleep deprivation and waterboarding don't constitute torture or coercion?

They are techniques used to get information. I don't believe they constitute torture.

Also, re-read the excerpt below and ask yourself a question: what is the penalty that a US soldier would serve for killing an Al Qaida member on the battlefield?


Quote:
Prisoners of war may not be sentenced by the military authorities and courts of the Detaining Power to any penalties except those provided for in respect of members of the armed forces of the said Power who have committed the same acts.

Could you explain this one to me again? I hope a U.S. soldier wouldn't be punished for killing an al-Qaeda member on the battlefield (assuming he was engaged in fighting).

 

[yossarian22]

They are techniques used to get information. I don't believe they constitute torture.

What?
So basically burning your heel every time you failed to answer a question "properly" is not torture?

Could you explain this one to me again? I hope a U.S. soldier wouldn't be punished for killing an al-Qaeda member on the battlefield (assuming he was engaged in fighting).

We cannot try an enemy combatant for performing an action against us which our own armed forces can legally do.

 

[Booko]

This argument could work for Taliban-only prisoners and Iraq-only prisoners. But I would guess (and this is a guess because I really don't know) that the majority of the prisoners do not fit into that category.

Nobody knows, and that's exactly the problem, Joe.

When you leave people for years in a prison with no access to legal advice or any sort of due process to determine whether they're combatants, criminals, or just happened to be in the wrong place at that wrong time, what you get is...the unknown.

Our country cannot pretend to stand for justice while we flout it.

Well, we can.

But then we can't expect much respect from other nations if we do that, either.

 

[Booko]

There's no such thing as impeachable offenses. Every perception that someone has committed a crime is merely partisan political maneuver by either a "liberal" or a "conservative." Thus, there's also no such thing as a valid impeachment.

There are "high crimes and misdemeanors" if memory serves, but no definition as to what that actually is.

 

[yossarian22]

There are "high crimes and misdemeanors" if memory serves, but no definition as to what that actually is.

High crimes generally means assault & battery or greater.
I don't know what a high misdemeanor is.
Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[Booko]

High crimes generally means assault & battery or greater.
I don't know what a high misdemeanor is.
Isn't that an oxymoron?

Maybe it means they commit illegal acts after using psychoactive substances???

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand the point.

Under the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war get treated to the same comforts and amenities your own soldiers enjoy. The only difference are the necessary measures you take to keep them from escaping. They've built several fast food restaurants at Gitmo for the base staff.

It's simply one illustration that Gitmo prisoners are not treated with the same standard as the base soldiers, which would contravene the Geneva Conventions... if the prisoners are actually prisoners of war.

Wow, the orange jumpsuits are grounds for impeaching the president?

By itself, probably not. As one more element in an array of evidence that shows that on Bush's watch, hundreds of people have been improperly deprived of all legal status and human rights, it's another brick in the wall.

They are techniques used to get information. I don't believe they constitute torture.

I'd disagree. However, I'm sure you would consider them coercion, wouldn't you? Please re-read the excerpt of Article 17 of Convention III that I quoted before:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Could you explain this one to me again? I hope a U.S. soldier wouldn't be punished for killing an al-Qaeda member on the battlefield (assuming he was engaged in fighting).

I would hope so as well. Killing "the enemy" is a normal part of war. With legitimate prisoners of war, the mere fact that they've killed soldiers on the opposing side does not constitute a crime. There are prisoners in Gitmo who, apparently (since it's hard to really find out about most proceedings there), have been brought before military tribunals for the crime of killing US soldiers. If there is actually a war, this is not a crime in and of itself. If there is no war, then the prisoners are not "prisoners of war", but are in fact criminal suspects and entitled to all normal rights afforded a suspect, such as the right to adequate counsel, the right to face one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial before a jury of one's peers.

I have no doubt that there are guilty people in Gitmo who have committed horrible crimes. However, I also have no doubt that there are many innocent people there as well, and until the guilty have their guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a proper court of law, we can't reasonably tell the difference. Also, I question the legitimacy of the United States detaining these people for alleged crimes that were committed on foreign soil.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,

A more dangerous path is assuming that it is not, by and large, liberals that want to impeach Bush and Cheney.

So the Big Bad Liberals have grave issues with Bush's policies, some to the point of impeachment. If their case is solid, then what's so bad about their stance?

Also:

A vast number of Republicans don't like Bush & Cheny nor their policies. Your claim that this is just a Liberal persecution of Republicans is baseless.

Here's the latest proof of this claim:

Warner: Begin Iraq withdrawal - Politics - MSNBC.com

Never thought I'd see that man even consider boarding the timetable-withdrawal bandwagon!

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi yosarrian,

What?
So basically burning your heel every time you failed to answer a question "properly" is not torture?

I noticed you said 'basically,' so what is really happening?

We cannot try an enemy combatant for performing an action against us which our own armed forces can legally do.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Booko,

Nobody knows, and that's exactly the problem, Joe.

Actually it looks like Sunstone knew. If I am not mistaken, if he can found out, then others could too.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi penguin,

Under the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war get treated to the same comforts and amenities your own soldiers enjoy. The only difference are the necessary measures you take to keep them from escaping. They've built several fast food restaurants at Gitmo for the base staff.

It's simply one illustration that Gitmo prisoners are not treated with the same standard as the base soldiers, which would contravene the Geneva Conventions... if the prisoners are actually prisoners of war.

So, now the argument is that the prisoners don't have access to fast food, therefore we should impeach Bush.

However, I'm sure you would consider them coercion, wouldn't you?

They are methods to get information. I don't believe such things as turning up the heat would constitute coercion.

I would hope so as well. Killing "the enemy" is a normal part of war. With legitimate prisoners of war, the mere fact that they've killed soldiers on the opposing side does not constitute a crime. There are prisoners in Gitmo who, apparently (since it's hard to really find out about most proceedings there), have been brought before military tribunals for the crime of killing US soldiers. If there is actually a war, this is not a crime in and of itself. If there is no war, then the prisoners are not "prisoners of war", but are in fact criminal suspects and entitled to all normal rights afforded a suspect, such as the right to adequate counsel, the right to face one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial before a jury of one's peers.

Okay, now I understand. So, we don't try the prisoners for killing our troops (or attempting to kill our troops). We just keep them locked up. After all, the war is still going on.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

So the Big Bad Liberals have grave issues with Bush's policies, some to the point of impeachment. If their case is solid, then what's so bad about their stance?

No, the claim I was contesting was that the people calling impeachment constituting a large number of non-liberals. Sure, there are some, but they are a small minority.

And this comes from the fact that a lot liberals want to criminalize politics. If you don't like a policy of some conservative, then remove him from office for being a criminal. I think the libertarians and conservatives that are very unhappy with Bush realize that he may have poor policies, but that doesn't constitute him being a criminal that needs to be removed from office.

Big difference.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

No, the claim I was contesting was that the people calling impeachment constituting a large number of non-liberals. Sure, there are some, but they are a small minority.

Small or not--and again, that all depends on one's personal definition of "liberal"--that number is growing. I personally know some VERY socially conservative people who would have no problem seeing Bush impeached.

And this comes from the fact that a lot liberals want to criminalize politics. If you don't like a policy of some conservative, then remove him from office for being a criminal. I think the libertarians and conservatives that are very unhappy with Bush realize that he may have poor policies, but that doesn't constitute him being a criminal that needs to be removed from office.

Big difference.

I am completely confused by the first sentence there. The only way to do that is to enforce anarchy, which by default requires a government and thus cannot be done.

If you're trying to say that Bush shouldn't be impeached for lying to his people, starting a preemptive war, illegally wiretapping his people, etc., then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I really wish you'd just come out and say so instead of continuing this kill-the-messenger mentality that you appear to have against those horrible, awful "liberals."

Again, in light of the stunt that the Republican congress pulled in the late '90s against Clinton, it seems awfully one-sided of an argument.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Small or not--and again, that all depends on one's personal definition of "liberal"--that number is growing. I personally know some VERY socially conservative people who would have no problem seeing Bush impeached.

That's terrific and not contested by me.

I am completely confused by the first sentence there. The only way to do that is to enforce anarchy, which by default requires a government and thus cannot be done.

If you're trying to say that Bush shouldn't be impeached for lying to his people, starting a preemptive war, illegally wiretapping his people, etc., then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But I really wish you'd just come out and say so instead of continuing this kill-the-messenger mentality that you appear to have against those horrible, awful "liberals."

Again, in light of the stunt that the Republican congress pulled in the late '90s against Clinton, it seems awfully one-sided of an argument.

Criminalizing politics would be removing people from office for holding views that you don't like. And you have done a nice exercise of that. You don't like Bush's policies therefore he committed criminal offences and must be removed from office.

To many liberals (yes liberals and I will continue using the term) dislike of policies equals criminal behavior.

 

[powder21]

The same thing it proves to fire an employee who did something illegal while at work?

Agreed!!! It's all about principles. I could care less if they're actually thrown out of office. However, if they are not brought up on charges in a public court of law at some point (even after the Dems win the next election ) then we send a CLEAR message that it is worse to get a blow job than it is to blatantly violate the constitution, go to war on false pretenses, and completely ignore MILLIONS of people in need of help after a natural disaster. What the hell?

 

[Autodidact]

Ask Bill Clinton. He was impeached.

No, actually, he was acquitted.

 

[Autodidact]

Really, I'm curious. For those of you who think that the president (and possibly the VP) need to be impeached for whatever crimes they committed, what purpose does it serve? Will impeaching them somehow stop the war, bring the troops home, and solve every other problem? Does it just serve to send a message and take frustration out on someone?

If Bush and/or Cheney are impeached, what happens after that?

I agree with Gene, it's similar to the benefit of prosecuting a criminal. In fact, it is the analogous process, for analogous reasons. It sends a message to this and all future presidents that they have to obey the law or suffer consequences.

Does prosecuting a criminal magically help his victims? A little bit, and it helps maintain the rule of law.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, but firing the president is a much larger scale. I'm looking for specifics here. Will impeachment somehow bring the war to a dead stop and magically fix all the problems in Iraq?

Why would a political process work magic? Are you trying to say that if something doesn't end the war in Iraq, there's no point in it? Why bother having elections then?

Truth to tell, the President has screwed up things so royally it's hard to know how to unscrew it. It's easier to not break something than to fix it once it's broken. At this point I don't think there is a good solution to the fiasco in Iraq, and all possible outcomes are (1) horrible (2) expensive. And Bush is the one person responsible for deciding to break it and persuading the rest of us to agree by lying to us. That's a good reason to impeach right there. But will it undo the damage caused by all the lies? How on earth do you do that?